THE STUMP JANUARY 3, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
So everyone more or less agrees on the storyline heading into caucus night: Romney is clinging to a narrow lead, though there are doubts about whether he can break out of the mid-20s, which he’s never really surpassed either in Iowa or nationally. Ron Paul is near Romney at the top of the field, but is widely regarded as a sideshow: He draws heavily from young voters, most of whom will either turn out and vote for him or not vote at all. That leaves Rick Santorum, whom everyone agrees has the wind at his back. The latest polls have him in striking distance of Paul and Romney. Depending on how windy it gets, he may have a chance of winning outright. Herewith, a few further thoughts to set the stage for tonight:
First, the Santorum-Romney dynamic is obviously the one to watch. The conventional wisdom is that, to be competitive, Santorum must consolidate the social conservative vote that he and Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry had been splitting. That’s still true, as far as it goes. But his potential is actually a lot higher than this suggests. If you look, for example, at Tea Party voters, who tend to be more concerned about the size of government than social issues, Santorum is now leading. According to the most recent PPP poll, he pulls down 23 percent of that group to Newt Gingrich’s 18, Paul’s 16, and Bachmann’s 15. If, say, Gingrich supporters bolt, Santorum could see growth in the final 24-48 hours.
Second, there’s always been a certain subset of Iowa conservative that backed Romney because they thought he matched up best against Barack Obama, not because they loved him. As that subset increased in the last few weeks, Romney moved into the lead—last week’s NBC/Marist poll reflected this. But the problem with supporters who don’t love you is that they can just as easily un-support you when they find someone to love, at least when that someone starts to look plausible.
Which means Santorum may not be drawing just from the anti-Romney portion of the Iowa electorate; he may be poaching from Romney, too. In the latest PPP poll, 26 percent of Romney supporters actually list Santorum as their second choice. That gives Santorum a chance to do more than just eke out a win or close second in Iowa. If things break right, he could actually win by a comfortable margin, dealing Romney a humiliating blow.
Third, a lot of people have wondered what happens if Romney wins Iowa without breaking 25 percent. Does it count as a win? Or do people quickly point out that he’s exactly where he finished four years ago, and where he’s maxed out in national polls this year. But here’s a more depressing thought for Team Romney: What if he wins with even less support than in 2008? The last PPP poll suggests this is entirely possible, showing Paul, Romney, and Santorum bunched up at 20, 19, and 18 percent. This does not strike me as a momentum-building result for the ostensible frontrunner.
Finally, given Romney’s vulnerabilities in Iowa, one has to wonder: What on earth is Jon Huntsman thinking? The quirky-but-loaded former Utah governor has, as we all know, staked his entire campaign on New Hampshire. After months of pounding the pavement there, he’s still languishing in single digits, according to one recent poll. At this point, his campaign has mostly become an effort to kneecap Romney, whom Huntsman seems to loathe, and who has become the target of a super PAC funded by Huntsman family money. (The ads have derided Romney’s “chameleon”-like qualities.)
Fine—the Hunstmans can spend their money however they want. And Romney is clearly bad news for Huntsman, who seems to be eyeing another run in 2016. (Even if Romney loses to Obama, that would make it hard for another Mormon moderate to win the GOP nomination four years later.) But if the Huntsmans really wanted to hurt Romney, shouldn’t their super PAC have run ads in Iowa rather than New Hampshire? With Romney consistently 25-30 points ahead of his nearest competitor in New Hampshire, the only way to trip him up there is to first trip him up in Iowa, where he just happens to be in a dogfight. The pass the Huntsmans have given Romney in Iowa is one of the most mystifying developments of the last few weeks.
follow me on @noamscheiber
8 comments
Wait a minute, if Romney does show poorly in Iowa, won't it give New Hampshire voters another reason to break from Romney and support the next most plausible candidate who could defeat Obama? And isn't the next most plausible candidate Huntsman, at least as viewed by the New Hampshire voters after the Huntsman family and friends flood the media with just that message following the results in Iowa. With a poor showing in Iowa and a surge by Huntsman in New Hampshire, Romney would quickly fade as the "inevitable" nominee and lose the support that goes with it.
- rayward
January 3, 2012 at 9:02am
I'm not sure how this differs from my argument that Huntsman should have attacked Romney in Iowa rather than limit his attacks to NH.
- Noam Scheiber
January 3, 2012 at 9:09am
While there are plenty of anybody but Romney voters in Iowa, they most likely are not potential Huntsman voters (as NS points out, they are most likely potential Paul and Santorum voters), so spending money and time in Iowa is a waste of Huntsman's time and resources (let the other candidates spend their time and resources in Iowa doing damage to the Romney brand) and might create the aura of a loser that would carry over to New Hampshire (and hence no surge in New Hampshire). By doing so little in Iowa, there are no expectations created that would only be deflated (and hence no surge). NS's post confirms there are no expectations for Huntsman in Iowa. Such over-thinking (by me not NS) about a candidate's strategy is what makes presidential politics so much fun!
- rayward
January 3, 2012 at 10:15am
I think even a strong third by Santorum (closely behind Romney and Paul) positions him as the social conservative in a position to square off against Mitt in coming weeks. But there are two big issues at play here that could well hamper him: 1. Who else stays in the race. If Bachmann, Gingrich and Perry all stay in, that continues to split the social conservative vote. We could have an odd sort of replay of 2008, when (if I recall correctly) Huckabee's remaining in the race actually helped McCain, to Romney's detriment. In the wake of a strong Santorum showing in Iowa, I wouldn't put it past Mitt to cut a deal with one or more of the second tier candidates to stay in, so as to weaken Santorum. (I suppose Huntsman could similarly draw off support from Romney, but that seems a more remote possibility at this point.) 2. How strong a race Santorum runs. He doesn't seem to be the best campaigner or speaker out there - dogged more than inspirational or energizing. Plus with the additional media attention he may yet make a well-publicized verbal goof that could be his undoing. And of at least equal importance, even with a surge of media attention and funding he may lack the organization to take on Mitt, particularly in caucus states where such organization can be crucial. (Ask President Hillary Clinton how important it is to have your campaign act together for such states.)
- Thunderroad
January 3, 2012 at 12:58pm
Just read that Santorum thinks states should be able to ban birth control and sodomy. Right. This is nuts.
- Sophia
January 3, 2012 at 2:02pm
Raywrd, I think Noam is correct (you are also, for what it's worth). Let me add my take on it: Hunstman doesn't need to run against Romney in Iowa. He just needs to devote resources against him, there; maybe a Huntsman-friendly super-PAC can run adds against him noting his spinelessness etc. I also suspect there are a non-trivial number of GOP moderates there, who could be reminded of Romney's lesser qualities, i.e. inconsistency, pandering, squishiness on all the important issues, and propensity to run worse against Obama than one John Huntsman, who, by the way, also agrees with the mainstream GOP on most things that are important. So, yeah, maybe he could run against him in Iowa, also, just to knock off those few critical points, but I don't think it's actually necessary to do so, to hurt Romney there.
- Curran1
January 3, 2012 at 2:08pm
Thunder, I think Santorum's ability to compete with Romney long-term has to come down to money, and being able to quickly deploy it. Santorum should be able to leverage a good showing in Iowa (even if he doesn't win) to get a big fundraising bump, not just at the expense of Perry and Bachmann (whose fundraising has flatlined in the past 2 months in any case) but also at the expense of Gingrich (whose fundraising jumped substantially in December, after he surged earlier in the month). But the reality is that Santorum, like Hillary in 2008, will leave Iowa without money and with precious little time to deploy his new-found wealth against Romney in South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere. And, unlike Hillary -- who could at least count on recouping her monetary losses after Iowa and New Hampshire by being in a two-way race with Obama -- Santorum will be in a three-way race with Romney and a down-but-not-likely-out Gingrich, and possibly in a four-way race with Huntsman coming off a solid second-place finish in NH. That sort of dynamic would work against Santorum's ability to effectively build himself up as an anti-Romney force in the South and the Midwest and, by splitting the anti-Romney vote with Gingrich, allow Romney to squeeze by with wins in most or all of the early voting states. My guess is that, whatever happens in Iowa or NH, this race will be effectively won by Romney before Super Tuesday.
- wildboy
January 3, 2012 at 2:55pm
Noam's right. Huntsman should have attacked Romney from the start in Iowa, just to show NH and SC voters that he's a player, however small to begin with. Getting one percent of the Iowa caucus votes like he did may even discourage support for him in NH. As wrong as it is that Iowa has so much influence in the primary process, in order to do-si-do, you have to show up at the square dance. Huntsman doesn't have to attack Santorum--the guy is his exact opposite. In primaries you go after the fellow who's most like you, especially if he's the (temporary) front runner. By taking votes away from Romney in Iowa, and thus allowing someone else win a close race there, Huntsman might have been able to label Romney as a loser entering the NH primary.
- magboy47.
January 4, 2012 at 12:44am